Economical and Emotional Paradox in Samuel Richardson's Pamela

Nancy Armstong, in her essay "From Desire and Domestic Fiction: A Political History of the Novel," writes that in order to properly represent the rise of domestic women (through their roles in novels), one must first "identify the paradox that shapes modern culture" (p. 467). She continues, eventually stating that "as women… these protagonists understand social experience as a series of sexual encounters. Although characteristically naïve, their responses are far from simple" (p. 471).
This role is definitely exemplified by the title character from Samuel Richardson's Pamela. Yet the question remains: how does a domestic female overcome the paradox of a culture driven by sexual encounters when she is already "characteristically naïve?"

It is too simple to find the answer in simple Virtue. Throughout Pamela, Virtue is a simple shortcoming-a dead end for both the protagonist and the conflict which drives her monologues. Pamela's moral upbringing never gives her the upper hand in ending the harassment [from] Mr. B, and her responses are indeed simple. Although Pamela can identify the cultural paradox-she must adhere to Mr. B, her master, domestically but she cannot allow adhere to him sexually-she too often relies on her naivety to come up with solutions that are indeed simple. Sure, this allows the novel to progress but rarely does Pamela redeem herself.

There is one passage in Pamela, however, that does convey a major break from this domestic simplicity. On page 200 of the novel, Pamela endures a major introspection:

So here I have lived about sixteen Years in Virtue and Reputation and, all at once, when I come to know what is Good and what is Evil, I must renounce all that is Good, all whole sixteen Years Innocence… and chuse the Evil; and so, in a Moment's Time, become the vilest of Creatures! And all this, for what I pray? Why… a Diamond Ring for my Finger; which would not become me. (p. 200)

In order for Pamela to progress through life, she must be married. And, in order to marry, she must find someone of a high stature to elevate her role in contemporary society. She has already come from humble beginnings, but this is paradoxically frowned upon by the overbearing majority of people. Perhaps Pamela does recognize that this is the basis of the paradigm, but she does little to represent any kind of rise for domestic females.

Pamela's introspective conclusion may be complex, but it is also a simplified irony-Pamela must play into the role of the domestic female by first selling herself out. This, in itself, is naïve and [dare I say] far from virtuous. Perhaps these are the confusions and complexities that face a young girl devout to servitude, so the binary oppositions of paradox and naivety shouldn't be entirely clean cut for Armstrong in her essay.